<quoted text>Not sillier than the claim, changing marriage laws only affects same sex couples and nobody else..<quoted text>I'm glad you agree..<quoted text>The issue is what the government accepts as marriage, not your individual freedom to associate as you wish.

Explain how such a marriage will negatively affect anyone or anything at all.

Now, if you are claiming that there will be positive effects for people other than the gay married couple, you would be right. Marriage has always had a positive impact on families and kids, and more secure families and kids means a stronger society as a whole.

<quoted text>There's nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality; gays have always married under the same laws as everyone else. The prime threat to the fundamental cultural institution are forces weakening the family to make people more dependent on government. Same sex marriage is just another brick in the wall.........

So, please - in detail - explain how gay couples marrying will force them, and their children, to be MORE dependent on government.

Isn't it usually the other way around?

How can anyone say that when people marry and value marriage, it weakens marriage as a whole?

<quoted text>.......<quoted text>I understand many same sex marriage supporters feel the issue is silly; they base their views on emotion, not considering the consequences of their policy to radically redefine marriage.........

No, actually, we base our views on the issue on personal experience, facts, statistics and logic, along with a good dose of common sense.

It is your type who is only working from emotion. You "feel" that a gay couple marrying is wrong because you lack basic empathy, so you imagine all sorts of dire predictions, that you can't logically prove or even rationally explain, and that never seem to come to fruition.

For instance, I have asked you many may times to explain how stronger and more secure families will harm other married couples or society, and you can't provide a single concrete answer.

......<quoted text>No, but same sex marriage supporters want to change marriage laws for everybody. When a state becomes more tolerant and let's drivers with .1% blood alcohol drive, it affects every driver and pedestrian, not just the drunk drivers...........

Can you prove that allowing gay folks to legally marry will cause them to recklessly kill other people?If not, your analogy is a bit weak. You might want to work on a more logical comparison.For instance, you can compare the laws banning same sex marriage to the ones that used to ban interracial marriage.You often use the same rhetoric used back then, so your comparison would be a little stronger. You seem to like the "everyone can already marry - it's just that some of you can't do it for love, but it's really the same" argument.It didn't hold too well back then, but, who knows, it might work now.There's also the "It feels icky to me so you shouldn't be allowed to do it" argument. And the "Your marriage and family will destroy the fabric of society because I say so" message.All of those are historically tried, if not true.

<quoted text>Until the 21st century, all written law in every nation defined marriage as male/female. Polygamy was outlawed under federal law in 1862; same sex marriage has never been illegal in any US state.

<quoted text>If a state changes it's law to become more tolerant and inclusive; to allow people with more than .1% blood alcohol to drive, that doesn't force teetotaler drivers to drink. Still, the law affects everyone, other drivers and pedestrians too, not just the drunks.

If a state changes its law to become more tolerand and inclusive; to legally recognize interracial marriages, that doesn't force people to marry outside their race. The law applies to everyone, even the loudmouth freaks who vocally oppose it and predict doom and gloom...which never happens.

<quoted text>Not sillier than the claim, changing marriage laws only affects same sex couples and nobody else..<quoted text>I'm glad you agree..<quoted text>The issue is what the government accepts as marriage, not your individual freedom to associate as you wish.

No, the issue is equality for all American citizens.

Also, the issue is the fruitlessness of failing to recognize what already exists.

But to clarify, legal recognition of same sex marriages does not affect anyone outside of same sex marriages any further than interracial marriages affect anyone outside of those.

That's not to say interracial marriage had no effect. It prevented overt discrimination. It forced bigots to comply with the law.

The same will happen with same sex marriages. Since it wasn't a dealbreaker with interracial marriage (and those who opposed interracial marriage were simply wrong) likewise it can't be a dealbreaker now (and those who oppose gay marriage are simply wrong.)

You couldn't vote unless you were a land owner and member of the local parish until the 19th century either.Its called evolving as a nation.Its a little different when you ask the vast majority to accept an evolution of the laws of nature virtually over night to appease a hand full of people.

And no one is saying that it is. .<quoted text>Homosexuals have always married; I cite Meredith Baxter and Oscar Wilde as two examples. I suppose they marry because it's nicer for their kids to be legitimate, to have a mother and father.

Would YOU tell your child that marrying only to procreate and with no love and attraction in the union is the same as marrying someone they can love romantically?

<quoted text>You wouldn't love the mother of your child? What kind of person are you?

My Dear, I DO love the Mother of my children. But I love her in the way a spouse loves another. Romantically. Spiritually, emotionally. I do not love her only for her ability to make children. I believe you have never married, and really can't understand - there seems to be an odd disconnect on your part.

<quoted text>Oscar Wilde's kids said he was a good father; who are you to judge? I say, if you want kids, marry your kid's other parent.

Did you ask how his wife felt about the union? And, if you require any parent, biological or otherwise, to marry the parent of any child they raise, it will get very complicated. It will likely destroy adoption all together, with all of those required marriages, and might require polygamy as well in the case of blended families.

<quoted text>You couldn't vote unless you were a land owner and member of the local parish until the 19th century either.Its called evolving as a nation.Its a little different when you ask the vast majority to accept an evolution of the laws of nature virtually over night to appease a hand full of people.

No, it isn't. People should learn from past mistakes and realize that denying any law abiding citizens equality is wrong. Why didn't you learn that?

Womens' suffrage started slowly, picked up speed, and must have seemed to happen overnight as well to those who were around at the time.

Our fight began to coalesce in the 60's and 70's. It's 2013. That's not overnight. That's some peoples' entire lives.

It is immoral to not rectify this inequality immediately, as more good gay folks die every day without the legal recognition we all know is coming.

<quoted text>Until the 21st century, all written law in every nation defined marriage as male/female. Polygamy was outlawed under federal law in 1862; same sex marriage has never been illegal in any US state.If you care about tolerance and integration; keep marriage gender diverse. Same sex marriage introduces a new standard of gender apartheid into the perfect integration of marriage as one man and one woman.

Ummmmm.The first state to license gay marriage was Massachusetts; and that was May 17, 2004.Nearly 'nine' years ago.You didn't even know it!.Apparently you didn't know this either:http://makeitequal.org/

Quest wrote:Seems pretty silly to the rest of us.I understand many same sex marriage supporters feel the issue is silly; they base their views on emotion, not considering the consequences of their policy to radically redefine marriage.

And tell us just exactly what are those consequences. I don't want you're opinion I want facts proven facts, facts based on science, not religion or fiction just cold hard facts. I challenge you

<quoted text>No, it isn't. People should learn from past mistakes and realize that denying any law abiding citizens equality is wrong. Why didn't you learn that?Womens' suffrage started slowly, picked up speed, and must have seemed to happen overnight as well to those who were around at the time.Our fight began to coalesce in the 60's and 70's. It's 2013. That's not overnight. That's some peoples' entire lives.It is immoral to not rectify this inequality immediately, as more good gay folks die every day without the legal recognition we all know is coming.

Quest wrote:Seems pretty silly to the rest of us.I understand many same sex marriage supporters feel the issue is silly; they base their views on emotion, not considering the consequences of their policy to radically redefine marriage.And tell us just exactly what are those consequences. I don't want you're opinion I want facts proven facts, facts based on science, not religion or fiction just cold hard facts. I challenge you

<quoted text>Then you might consider your own experiences and those of the foster care agencies you work with. It's not like professionals in the field find that observation controversial. It's only ideologues who believe that there is any correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia.

well we do have experience that backs up the claim. i was just wondering if tony c had any links to support his claim that "almost all child molesters were heterosexual". of course his claim might be a little off subject as the original claim was that children abused by homosexuals turn into abusers themselves.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.